w 


mm:. 


cr,^^!^  ^TTJur-.f  ■  ^t-::.. :'.M;-wry^'aK,''V  ■  a^s  ys*»^- 


#"'^ 


^jl  t1(W  ®bfolffirii'«|  ^ 


PRINCETON,  N.  J.  ^ 


'% 


Presented    hJY^VCy  ?S7S .  VJ^  CArV\  A  d  ,"S -"D . 


Division 
Section  • 


Standing  Connmittee  on  Theological  Seminaries 

IN    THE    MATTER    OF    THE    APPOINTMENT    OF    THE    REV. 
CHARLES    A.    imiGGS,    D.  D.,    AS    PROFESSOR    OF 
BIBLICAL    THEOLOGY    IN    UNION    THEO- 
LOGICAL SEMINARY,  X.  Y.  CITY. 


The  stauding  committee  on  theological 
seminaries  to  whom  were  referred  certain 
overtures  respecting  the  Kev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D.,  beg  leave  respectfully 
to  report  that  tliey  have  examined  the  same 
and  find  that  sixty-three  presbyteries,  to- 
wit,  the  presbyteries  of  Allegheny,  Balti- 
more, Butler.  Cairo,  Carlisle,  Cherokee  Na- 
tion, Chester,  Cincinnati,  Clarion,  Colum- 
bus, Crawfordsville,  Dayton,  Dubuque, 
Duluth,  P3bene/,er,  Freeport,  Grand  Kapids, 
Hastings,  llolston,  Huron,  Iowa,  Iowa  ('ity, 
Los  Angeles,  Lackawanna,  I^a  Crosse. 
Marion,  Mauniee,  Monmouth,  Nebraska 
City,  Xeoslio,  New  Bnmswick,  New  Castle, 
North  River,  Northumberland,  Osborne, 
( >/.ark,  Philadelphia,  Philadelphia  Central, 
I'liiladelphia  North,  Redstone,  Pittsburg, 
Portsmouth,  Pueblo,  Puget  Sound,  St. 
Chiirsville,  St.  Louis,  Shenango,  Solomon, 
South  Florida,  Sprluglield,  Steubenville, 
Transylvania,  Trinity,  I'nion,  Utah,  Vin- 
<  cnne.s,  Walla  Walla,  Washington  City, 
West  .Jersey,  White  Water.  Willa- 
iiii'tte,  Winona  and  Wood  River, 
have  overtured  the  General  Assembly  in 
reference  to  the  utterances  of  the  Rev.  Dr. 


Briggs,  contained  in  the  address  which  he 
delivered  on  the  occasion  of  his  induction 
into  the  chair  of  Biblical  theology  in  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary,  New  York. 
Some  of  the  presbyteries  recommend  specific 
action  on  the  part  of  the  Assembly,  but  the 
majority  of  them  ask  in  general  terms  that 
the  General  Assembly  take  such  action  as, 
in  its  wisdom,  it  may  deem  best. 

Inasmuch  as  the  thetjlogicai  training  of 
our  candidates  for  the  ministry  is  a  matter 
in  which  all  the  presbyteries  have  a  deep 
and  common  interest,  the  presbyteries 
aforesaid  are  to  be  commended  for  their 
vigilant  regard  for  the  purity  of  the  church, 
and  their  overtures  should  have  weight 
with  the  Assembly  in  taking  action  upon  a 
matter  which  would,  in  any  event,  have 
come  to  the  knowledge  of  the  A.ssembly 
through  the  report  of  the  directors  of 
Union  Theological  Seminary  to  the  general 
as.sembly.  The  present  report  of  your  com- 
mittee is  also  a  report  on  so  much  of  the  re- 
port of  the  directors  of  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  as  refers  to  the  ajipointment  of 
Dr.  Briggs  to  the  diair  of  Bil)lical  tlieology 
in  the  siiid  seminary.     It  appears  from   that 


report  that  "on  th^  11th  of  November?  18^0, 
the  Edward  Robiason  Professorship  of 
Biblical  Theology  was  founded  and  endowed 
by  Charles  Butler,  LL.  D.,  by  the  gift  of 
SlOOjOOO;"  and  that  "at  the  same  time  Prof. 
Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D.  was  transferred  to 
the  new  chair  from  the  Davenport  Profes- 
sorship of  Hebrew  and  the  Cognate 
languages."  On  the  20th  of  January,  1891, 
Dr.  Briggs  delivered  an  inaugural  address 
on  "The  Authority  of  Holy  Scripture," 
which  has  been  the  subject  of  severe  criti- 
cism, and  which  is  the  occasion  of  the  recom- 
mendations which  your  committee  feel  con- 
strained to  make  to  the  Assembly.  In  mak- 
ing these  recommendations  your  com- 
mittee feel  that  they  are  acting  in  the 
discharge  of  a  difficult  and  delicate 
duty.  The  matter  with  which  they  have 
been  called  to  deal  bears  in  a  very  important 
way  upon  the  purity  and  peace  of  our 
church.  The  interests  of  the  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary  should  be  most  carefully 
considered,  and  great  regard  should  be  had 
for  the  judgment  of  those  who,  as  directors 
and  as  members  of  its  faculty,  are  admin- 
istering its  affairs.  The  committee  feel, 
moreover,  that  while  the  Assembly  has  not 
been  officially  informed  that  the  presbytery 
of  New  York  has  taken  steps  that  look 
toward  a  prosecution  of  Dr.  Briggs  on  the 
charge  of  heresy,  this  well-known  fact 
should  be  so  far  recognized  as  to  secure 
from  the  Assembly  the  protection  of  the 
good  name  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  the  discussion 
of  the  question  that  will  come  before  the 
Assembly  through  this  report,  and  also  to 
prevent  any  expression  of  opinion  on  the 
part  of  this  Assembly  that  could  be  justly 
regarded  as  a  prejudgment  of  the  case  that 
will  soon,  as  it  now  appears,  assume  the 
form  of  a  judicial  process  in  the  presbytery 
of  New  York.  It  cannot  be  too  carefully  ob- 
served that  the  question  before  this  Assembly 
is  not  whether  Dr.  Briggs,  as  a  Presbyterian 
minister,  has  so  far  contravened  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Westminster  confession  of  faith 
as  to  have  made  himself  liable  to  judicial 


censure;  but  whether,  in  view  of  the  iitter- 
ances  contained  in  the  inaugural  address 
already  referred  to,  and  the  disturbing  effect 
which  they  have  produced  throughout  the 
church,  the  election  of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the 
chair  of  biblical  theology  in  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary  should  be  disap- 
proved. 

Your  committee  have  examined  the  law 
of  the  church  regarding  the  relation  of  the 
General  Assembly  to  the  theological  semi- 
naries under  its  care.  The  relation  of  the 
Assembly  to  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary, so  far  as  the  appointment  of  pro- 
fessors is  concerned,  is  embodied  in  the  fol- 
lowing statement,  taken  from  page  390,  of 
the  new  digest : 

"1.  That  the  board  of  directors  of  each 
theological  seminary  shall  be  authorized  to 
appoint  all  professors  for  the  same. 

"3.  That  all  such  appointments  shall  be 
reported  to  the  General  Assemblj%  and  no 
appointment  of  a  professor  shall  be  consid- 
ered as  a  complete  election  if  disapproved 
by  a  majority  vote  of  the  assembly. 

"And  further,  be  it  resolved,  That  the 
board  of  directors  of  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  the  City  of  New  York,  per- 
suaded that  the  plan  proposed  in  the  memo- 
rial will  meet  the  cordial  approval  of  the 
patrons,  donors  and  friends  of  all  these 
seminaries,  and  contribute  to  the  peace  and 
prosperity  of  the  church,  do  hereby  agree, 
if  the  said  plan  shall  be  adopted  by  the  Gen- 
eral Assembly,  that  they  will  agree  to  con- 
form to  the  same,  the  Union  Theological 
Seminary  in  New  York  being  in  this  respect 
on  the  same  ground  with  other  theological 
seminaries  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. — 
[1870,  pp.  148-14!*.] 

"The  Assembly  complied  with  this  re- 
quest."— [See  Minutes,  pp.  60-64.] 

On  page  39T  of  the  new  digest  there  is  the 
following  statement  respecting  the  "limita- 
tions of  time  within  which  the  Assembly 
may  exercise  its  veto  in  the  election  of  a 
professor:" 

"That  the  Assemblv  declare  that  the  true 


meaning  of  the  act  subjecting  the  election 
of  a  professor  to  the  veto  of  the  Assembly  is 
that  such  election  be  reported  to  the  next 
General  Assembly  thereafter,  and  if  not 
vetoed  by  that  Assembly  the  election  shall 
be  regarded  as  complete  according  to  the 
plan  ratified  by  the  assembly  of  1H70." — [See 
Minutes,  pp.  (K)-(j5,  18TH;  1871,  p.  581.  | 

It  appears,  then,  that  according  to  the 
terms  of  the  contract  quoted  above,  the 
directors  of  the  Union  Theological  Semi- 
nary have  conceded  to  the  Assembly  the 
right  to  veto  the  appointment  of  professors; 
and  that  an  election  is  complete  unless 
vetoed  by  the  next  Assembly  following  the 
election. 

Your  committee  would  have  been  dis- 
posed to  recommend  that  the  report  of  the 
directors  of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary, 
so  far  as  it  has  reference  to  the  transfer  of 
Dr.  Hriggs  to  the  chair  of  bibilical  theology, 
be  referred  to  the  next  Assembly,  if  such  a 
disi)osition  of  the  matter  had  been  possible. 
But  the  Assembly  has  clearly  no  power  to 
postpone  action.  The  control  of  the  church 
over  the  election  of  Dr.  Briggs  ceases  with 
the  dissolution  of  the  present  Assembly. 
Your  committee  are  constrained,  therefore, 
to  say  that,  in  their  judgment,  it  is  the  duty 
of  the  Assembly  to  disapprove  of  the  ap- 
pointment of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the  Edward  I 
Kobinson  chair  of  biblical  tlieology  in  the  ! 
Union  Theological  Seminary. 

Your  committee  desire  to  say,  moreover, 
that  while  they  are  clear  in  their  judgment 
that  the  assembly  has  the  right  to  veto  the 
appointment  of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the  chair  of  . 
Biblical  Theology,  it  is  possible  to  impose  a 
meaning  upon  tlie  apparently  unambiguous  i 
phraseology  of  the  compact  between  the 
tieneral  ^Vssembly  and  the  directors  of  tlie 
Union  Theological  Seminary  that  would 
lead  to  a  di  tic  rent  conclusion.  Fairness  al- 
so requires  us  to  rememl)er|that  the  Assem- 
bly is  one  of  the  i)arties  to  the  contract  that 
it  is  called  upon  to  construe.  While  your 
committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  com- 
pact in  (juestion,  did   not  contemplate   tlie 


dLstinction  between  the  election  of  a  person 
to  be  a  professor  and  the  appointment  of 
one  already  a  professor  to  the  work  of  ;i  cer- 
tain department  of  instruction,  it  cannot  be 
denied  that  such  a  distinction  exists;  the 
one  act  conferring  ataluti;  the  other  only  as- 
signing duties. 

The  seemingly  irregular  cour.se  of  the  di- 
rectors of  the  Union  Tlieological  Seminarj* 
whereby  Dr.  Briggs  was  inducted  into  of- 
fice before  the  Asseml)ly  had  been  advised  of 
his  appointment,  is  doubtless  to  be  attrib- 
uted to  their  mode  of  construing  their  com- 
pact with  the  (Jeneral  As.sembly.  While  your 
committee  are  sure  that  the  Assembly  will 
not  and  should  not  admit  that  its  right  of 
disapproval,  is  restricted  to  the  original 
election  of  a  person  to  a  place  in  the  faculty 
of  the  Union  Theological  Seminary,  and 
while  they  are  of  the  opinion  that  acting 
according  to  the  light  it  now  lias  the  Assem- 
bly cannot  but  disappi'ove  of  the  appointment 
of  Dr.  Briggs  to  the  professor.ship  of  Bib- 
lical theology  in  that  seminary,  they  are 
nevertheless  of  the  opinion  that  in  the  in- 
terest of  the  mutual  relations  of  confidence 
and  cordial  resjiect  subsisting  between  the 
Union  Theological  Seminary  and  the  (ien- 
eral  Assemblj-,  it  would  be  eminently  proper 
for  the  Assembly  to  appoint  a  committee  to 
confer  with  the  directors  of  the  Union  Theo- 
logical Seminary  in  reganl  to  the  relations 
of  the  said  seminary  to  the  (ieneral  Assem- 
bly, and  to  report  to  the  next  (Ieneral  As- 
seml)ly. 

Your  ccjmmittee  recommend  the  adoption 
of  the  following  resolutions: 

1.  llixiilvi.il.  That  ill  the  exercise  of  its  rinht  to 
veto  till'  appointnieiil  of  professors  in  the  Union 
Theological  .Seminary  the  (ieneral  .Vsseinbly 
hereby  disapiiroves  of  llie  ajjpoinlineut  of  tlie 
Hev.  rharles  A.  Mrik'iis,  1).  D..  to  the  Kdward 
Kobinson  professorship  of  Hiblical  theoloK^"  in 
that  seminary  by  transfer  from  another  cbuir  in 
llie  same  seminary. 

'^.RisDlvtil,  That  a  eonuuittec  consistint;  of 
eit;bt  ministers  and  seven  rnliuk'  elders  be  ap- 
I)ointed  by  this  .Vsseml)ly  to  confer  with  tin- 
directors  of  the  Inion  Tlio  ilou'ical  Seminary  in 
reuard  to  tlie  relations  of  the  said  seminary  to 
the  (ieneral  .Vssembly,  and  to  repi>rt  lo  the  ne.\t 
(ieucral  .Assembly. 

Resjiect fully  submitted. 

KH.VNt'IS  L.  I'VTTOV,  Chairmau. 


-  -*-i^L:-:f7,-_  KLZ^/1 


Date  Due 


iiiiiiiiiii 


